Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Norfolk Island Ditching ATSB Report - ?

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Norfolk Island Ditching ATSB Report - ?

Old 2nd Dec 2017, 04:58
  #1141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,370
Lookleft; looking at outcomes and learning for a minute. If as you suggest Dj has an "attitude' problem then CASA and the ATSB are still failures at generating a useful outcome from this mess because they fail to label the problem as behavioural.

Furthermore their treatment of the event has created a saint when as you say, we should all be learning the lessons about where "attitude" inevitably gets you.

This mess is lose/lose - the operator, CASA and ATSB look like a pack of idiots. None of us can tell if DJ is a sinner or a saint. The only lesson the pilot community can draw from all this is that there is no justice, so act accordingly. Needless to say, that ain't useful.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2017, 05:08
  #1142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 2,804
I let that one go to the keeper as I thought the question was embarrassing enough for you
Why embarrassing? Not game to answer because it may be embarrassing?
megan is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2017, 05:16
  #1143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,058
Lookleft said:
Well done Down and Welded you have summed up the situation quite succinctly. There is a lot of talk about lessons learnt. One reason I asked the question about getting into an aircraft commanded by DJ is that I don't think he has learnt from the experience and I am not talking about how to do a PNR.

This is one reason why I think this:

Quote:
But Mr James said a larger tank of fuel would not have changed the outcome that day – he would still have had to ditch the plane in the ocean.

Instead, he said a lack of information about the rapidly deteriorating weather that day was a major factor glossed over.

"For two-and-a-half hours of that flight, there were about four significant opportunities for air traffic control to look at the information in front of them and pass it onto me. All of these opportunities were missed," he said.
Over 40+ years experience I have held the view that rather than always expect to be given or handed such information, it is instead a pilot responsibility (a philosophy seemingly supported by AIP & CAR) to:
  1. obtain all operational information necessary for a flight;
  2. update it before flight, particularly if a significant time period has elapsed from the time the original material was sourced, and
  3. in-flight be proactive and regularly seek updates, e.g. half hour and hourly METAR/SPECI if available if going to a location where the WX or other local aspects may be subject to change, particularly if an enroute diversion/decision point is involved.
While ATC/ATS have a responsibility to pass limited information in-flight to particular categories of flight in specific classes of airspace,
  1. it is subject to their workload,
  2. their alert or delivery timing may not suit my calculations or decision times, and
  3. they will not be aware of my alternate(s) nor anything affecting flight thereto, which I also need to monitor.

To me, this is basic knowledge and practice for all pilots. If it isn't being taught, then that is a sad indictment of pilot training in this country.
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2017, 05:48
  #1144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 91
The keeper is working overtime today.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2017, 06:07
  #1145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 91
Sunfish I don't disagree with you but as I said an attitude towards command is very subjective.Sim scores and check rides don't always give the whole picture about an individual.

Most of the pilot's I know who occupy the LHS know that the number one priority is to always cover your rear end with every decision that you make. It doesn't matter to me what the flight plan fuel is, if I think I need more I will take extra. It doesn't matter to me if Perth is CAVOK, I always carry fuel to go somewhere else. It doesn't make me a brilliant Captain it just makes me a cautious one.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2017, 06:15
  #1146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,758
Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight View Post
Lookleft saidver 40+ years experience I have held the view that rather than always expect to be given or handed such information, it is instead a pilot responsibility (a philosophy seemingly supported by AIP & CAR) to:
  1. obtain all operational information necessary for a flight;
  2. update it before flight, particularly if a significant time period has elapsed from the time the original material was sourced, and
  3. in-flight be proactive and regularly seek updates, e.g. half hour and hourly METAR/SPECI if available if going to a location where the WX or other local aspects may be subject to change, particularly if an enroute diversion/decision point is involved.
While ATC/ATS have a responsibility to pass limited information in-flight to particular categories of flight in specific classes of airspace,
  1. it is subject to their workload,
  2. their alert or delivery timing may not suit my calculations or decision times, and
  3. they will not be aware of my alternate(s) nor anything affecting flight thereto, which I also need to monitor.

To me, this is basic knowledge and practice for all pilots. If it isn't being taught, then that is a sad indictment of pilot training in this country.
Hmmmm.

So how often should I make the call: “X Centre, ABC, please provide all information that you have that’s relevant to my flight but you haven’t provided yet.”

Every 30 minutes?

I’ve learnt something new today.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2017, 06:32
  #1147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,058
So how often should I make the call: “X Centre, ABC, please provide all information that you have that’s relevant to my flight but you haven’t provided yet.”

Every 30 minutes?
Hardly.

If you have to ask me those questions, you reinforce my last sentence.
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2017, 06:47
  #1148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,758
Gosh.

I must have misread your #3:
in-flight be proactive and regularly seek updates, e.g. half hour and hourly METAR/SPECI...
There was me thinking a “half hour” was 30 minutes.

What phraseology should I use on the half hour to seek an update, as you’ve advised?

It’s so very Australian that the ANSP devotes so much energy to explaining the services that it doesn’t provide.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2017, 07:08
  #1149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Nz
Posts: 273
It doesn't matter to me if Perth is CAVOK, I always carry fuel to go somewhere else
Now that’s my kind of skipper.
73qanda is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2017, 10:51
  #1150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Here and there
Posts: 325
If it isn't being taught, then that is a sad indictment of pilot training in this country.
At the risk of generalisation, there is very little pilot training in this country. Once a pilot has passed his CPL and instrument rating and is looking for his first job, then it becomes up to him if he wishes to increase his professional knowledge. In the world of general aviation he learns on the job. Few employers have the time and financial resources to train him any more than he has already studied for in his licences and ratings.

There are some pilots who now rest on their laurels and deign to study any more than is absolutely necessary to keep their job. That probably applies to the majority.
Judd is online now  
Old 2nd Dec 2017, 11:08
  #1151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: America's 51st State
Posts: 186
Connedrod - RE post #1132 how's that head this morning?
VH-MLE is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2017, 11:55
  #1152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 2,804
There are some pilots who now rest on their laurels and deign to study any more than is absolutely necessary to keep their job
That's true, and CASA with its exams are of little help. ATPL(H) candidates had to learn 767 EFIS and pressurisation - neither of which had any application to (H).
Sim scores and check rides don't always give the whole picture about an individual
How would you score an individual, carrying two pax, who took off in a piston twin and had a double engine failure as a result of refuelling with Jet. Inevitable crash, but all survived. Had it been DJ he would be nailed to the cross and flailed to within an inch for not doing a fuel check, noticing the signage on the truck, or checking the fuel release note. Something most would hardly expect of a student. Bob Hoover was the guy, just showing that no matter how good you are, you are human, and predisposed to making the simplest of errors, for any multitude of reasons.
megan is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2017, 12:25
  #1153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 495
How would you score an individual, carrying two pax, who took off in a piston twin and had a double engine failure as a result of refuelling with Jet. Inevitable crash, but all survived. ...................................Bob Hoover was the guy, just showing that no matter how good you are, you are human, and predisposed to making the simplest of errors, for any multitude of reasons.
Don't know how others would score him, but I would score him very low in the grand scheme of things. You have to admit, that is a very appalling error to allow to happen in your own aircraft.
Eddie Dean is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2017, 14:07
  #1154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Age: 56
Posts: 356
The proposed movie could be interesting.

ATSB and CASA took a hell of a chance with the initial investigation. What could possibly have been worth taking that chance? There has been much speculation, but we still don't know what was behind this.

Presumably the movie will attempt to answer this.

Was the real explanation that the FAA were in Australia and there was a possibility Australia would be downgraded to Category 2 status? Maybe that was sufficient reason for a fix.

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/0...RRA1081_a.html

The timing is astonishingly bad for CASA.

The incident took place 18 Nov 2009. CASA immediately launched a comprehensive safety audit which found multiple deficiencies with the operator (many of these had been previously identified in a routine audit in 2008). This inevitably raised awkward questions about the effectiveness of regulatory oversight.

At the exact same time (30 November - 4 December) , FAA are in Australia conducting their own audit, and expressed concern about "a shortage of properly-trained inspectors and excessive delegation of regulatory functions to carriers."

So what is CASA to do with an awkward safety audit that appeared to precisely support the FAA concerns?

Is this the smoking gun? Is this the reason the safety audit was never passed to ATSB?

Better stock up on popcorn and Choc-tops!
slats11 is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2017, 20:07
  #1155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,758
There is probably no single ‘smoking gun’ to explain the energetic efforts to blame the PIC of NGA alone.

The Mildura event merely exposed dysfunction in BOM (and to some extent the ANSP) and accordingly the regulator. It was mostly luck that there was no hull loss and injuries or fatalities. So pretty easy to use the ‘move on nothing to see here’ tactic.

The coin having fallen the other way on 18 November 2009, the PIC of NGA exposed fundamental flaws in:

- Australia’s Pacific neighbours’ flight services
- BOM
- Australia’s ANSP
- the governance of an external Australian territory
- the operations of a politically-connected air operator, and
- the regulator’s oversight of the air operator.

This around the time of the FAA audit.

Very, very inopportune circumstances for a pilot to make a mistake. Way too many embarrassments.

The subsequent attempted whitewash managed to expose the increasing dysfunction in the ATSB.

These factors (and Australia’s airport infrastructure) are why Australia’s international reputation is that it is the only third world aviation nation in which you can safely drink the tap water.

Naturally, in the Orwellian world of 21st century government, all these organisations have to pretend that they’re doing a great job and ‘punching above their weight’. FWGJAU!

Coincidentally - purely coincidentally - the governance arrangements for the external Australian territory in question were, subsequent to the ditching, changed, and YSNF coincidentally - purely coincidentally - reappeared in the Area Forecasts for Area 20.

I should note that I’m not criticising any individual. I’m not criticising any individual who provides air traffic control or flight information services, or weather forecasting or reporting services, or individual investigators or operations or airworthiness inspectors. What’s at fault is the busted organisations in which they work - organisations that as a whole are now much less than the sum of their parts.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2017, 20:40
  #1156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Nz
Posts: 273
From the Wikileaks link above
5. (C/NF) A downgrade to Category 2 would be the worst-case
scenario, which would entail measures such as
freezing Australia-U.S. flight operations to current levels
and terminating code-sharing arrangements, such as the one
between Qantas and American Airlines. CASA officials are not
taking this possibility lightly and seem committed to
resolve the shortcomings in order to avoid a downgrade.
That is a big motivator to make sure things are looking rosy when the FAA return.
73qanda is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2017, 20:58
  #1157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,758
“Looking” being the operative word.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2017, 22:45
  #1158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,058
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon View Post
What phraseology should I use on the half hour to seek an update, as you’ve advised?
Read my post #1145 first point #3 in it's entirety.

"RQ latest met report XXXX"

How onerous is that for FW/ATS/ATC? Responding to such RQs is part of their ATS.

If proceeding to such a location as I described, why wouldn't you enroute proactively check the location's WX reports including those for your alternate(s), particularly up to your diversion point? How else are you going to know what the situation is on which to base decisions, without finding out yourself?

AIP GEN 3.3 paras 2.1.1, 2.3.1, 2.4.1 etc. & CAR 239.
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2017, 22:57
  #1159 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,758
Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight View Post
Read my post #1145 first point #3 in it's entirety.

"RQ latest met report XXXX"

How onerous is that for FW/ATS/ATC? Responding to such RQs is part of their ATS.

If proceeding to such a location as I described, why wouldn't you enroute proactively check the location's WX reports including those for your alternate(s), particularly up to your diversion point? How else are you going to know what the situation is on which to base decisions, without finding out yourself?

AIP GEN 3.3 paras 2.1.1, 2.3.1, 2.4.1 etc. & CAR 239.
Thanks for that.

As I said at #1148, I’ve learned something new.

Up until now I was labouring under the misapprehension that the ANSP would proactively provide new safety-critical information of which it becomes aware, to flights of which the ANSP is aware and to whom that information may be relevant. I now realise I was labouring under a misapprehension. It may not be provided unless requested.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2017, 23:22
  #1160 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,058
AIP GEN 3.3 para 2.1.1 my bolding:
Pilots are responsible for obtaining information necessary to
make operational decisions
. To ensure that accurate information
is obtained in adequate time, pilots must take into consideration
that ATC initiated FIS is limited to aircraft within one hours flight
time of the condition or destination at time of receipt of the
information by ATC.
The only exception to this is SIGMET
information, which shall cover a portion of the route up to two
hours flying time ahead of the aircraft.
This has obvious implications if you are outside the time frame, and ATC/ATS will not be aware of any alternate(s) you may be carrying, hence you need to monitor them also.

Last edited by CaptainMidnight; 3rd Dec 2017 at 04:25. Reason: Edited to reflect ATC not aware of ALTNs
CaptainMidnight is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.